It means that Finland is now Satellite state of U.S.

Russia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't. It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them.

If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.

Russia never wanted to take over Finland, they wanted Karelia back and got it.

It is correct a demobilized Russia had difficulty taking Karelia in 1940. However in 1945 the USSR could push the Wehrmacht and its allies back to Berlin, I don't know any historian who thinks taking Finland would have been a problem once mobilized.

Russia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.

The Soviets sent over a million soldiers to the Battle of Stalingrad and lost about 99% of them. And that was a victory for them.

It just sounds like the Soviets didn't want Finland that badly.

In the battle of Stalingrad they were the ones being attacked.

Big difference.

Yes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.

If we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win.

They could do it anytime. They just chose not to.

You truly believe this? Remarkable.

Of course that's not true. Nations can run out of at least three things required to wage war: resources, people, or will.

And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.

Yes, we all know Nazi Germany was only fighting against the Soviets between '40-'45. Truly, the use of U.S. and U.K. bombers that incapacitated Berlin's war machinery production never happened. The western side of the war was dealt with promptly, leaving only in the east, the Soviets to repent the Nazis.

It was the pure will of the Soviets which led them to their, and only their victory.

I don't even know what to say. It must have been a lack of will, surely. /s

(edit) Look, I know what you're trying to say. But if we put it that way, we're implying that they could've surpassed the will of the Finns in some way, if they wanted to. And I firmly believe that to not have been the case.

The Soviets bore the brunt of the fight against Germany. Roughly two-thirds of German casualties were on the Eastern Front - about 5.5 million, more than the entire population of Finland in 1940.

You know you're taking out of the equation the will of the Finns to defend their country. You keep talking as if the Soviets could've done it, if they wanted to.

They didn't do it, and you know why? Because they tried, and couldn't. That's what happened.

I'm sure you mean well, but even though they killed more than 5.5 million Nazis, they couldn't kill more than 70k Finns. And that's history, not some alternative possibility.

Yes, we all know that this move was played out by those sneaky Americans. 4D chess that invasion of Ukraine /s

A good politician never lets a catastrophe go to waste. U.S. may not have purposely caused the invasion of Ukraine, but it's certainly a useful tool to rake in those NATO holdouts.

The only one to blame for the invasion, or the fact that new countries are joining NATO is Putin, and his political colleagues.

Making it seem as if Finland is but a vassal for the U.S. for this move is disingenuous at best. After Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine, anyone would make such a decision. Out of their own will. In order to survive.